Maula v. Ximex Delivery Express, Inc.

,
G.R No. 207838, January 25, 2017
Peralta, J.
FACTS:

The CA found that petitioner threw a Memorandum served on him by HR Supervisor Gorospe in
front of her and when he later on shouted at her, "Siguro na abnormal ang utak mo!", he was not
only being disrespectful, he also manifested a willful defiance of authority and insubordination.
Much more, he did it in the presence of his co-employees which if not corrected would create a
precedent to respondent's detriment. Petitioner attempted to blame respondent for his behaviour
allegedly because he was provoked by the successive memoranda it issued to him in a span of
two (2) days.

Respondent contends that aside from petitioner's disrespectful remark against Gorospe, he also
committed several prior intentional misconduct, to wit: erroneous packaging of a cargo of
respondent's client, abandoning work after logging in, failing to teach the rudiments of his job to
the new employees assigned to his group despite orders from his superior, and refusing to accept
the management's order on the transfer of assignment. After evaluating the gravity of the charges
and the number of infractions, respondent decided to dismiss petitioner from his employment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Maula was illegally dismissed. (AFFIRMATIVE)

RULING:

The penalty of dismissal is too harsh. Not every case of insubordination or willful disobedience
by an employee reasonably deserves the penalty of dismissal because the penalty to be imposed
on an erring employee must be commensurate with the gravity of his or her offense. Petitioner's
termination from employment is also inappropriate considering that he had been with respondent
company for seven years and he had no previous derogatory record. It is settled that
notwithstanding the existence of a just cause, dismissal should not be imposed if the
employee had been employed for a considerable length of time in the service of his or her
employer, and such employment is untainted by any kind of dishonesty and irregularity.

No ample opportunity to be heard was also accorded to petitioner. Instead of devising a just way
to get the side of petitioner through testimonial and/or documentary evidence, respondent took
advantage of his "refusal" to file a written explanation. An employer is duty-bound to exert
earnest efforts to arrive at a settlement of its differences with the employee. While a full
adversarial hearing or conference is not required, there must be a fair and reasonable opportunity
for the employee to explain the controversy at hand.

The termination letter issued by respondent miserably failed to satisfy the requisite contents of a
valid notice of termination. Instead of discussing the facts and circumstances to support the
violation of the alleged company rule that imposed a penalty of dismissal, the letter merely
repeats the self-serving accusations.
No hearing or conference was called with respect to petitioner's alleged misconduct. Instead, he
was immediately placed under preventive suspension for thirty days and was dismissed while he
was still serving his suspension. According to respondent, it is proper to suspend him pending
investigation because his continued employment poses serious and imminent threat to the life of
the company officials and also endanger the operation of the business of respondent, which is a
common carrier duty-bound to observe extra-ordinary diligence.

Preventive suspension may be legally imposed against an employee whose alleged violation is
the subject of an investigation. The purpose of suspension is to prevent harm or injury to the
company as well as to fellow employees.

Here, it cannot be said that petitioner posed a danger on the lives of the officers or employees of
respondent or their properties. Being one of the Operation Staff, which was a rank and file
position, he could not and would not be able to sabotage the operations of respondent.